Tapes or CDs aren't covered by the DMCA because these don't have built-in technology to prevent copying. At least I'm pretty sure that's how it works.

Aha. Though some CDs don't.

If this is something for which the board will be held liable, then it needs to be trumpeted everywhere.

However, as stated before, if we start being diligent, we'd better be thoroughly diligent. And I don't think we can be.

That's my impression, too. The reason the DMCA was created is because it's considered so easy to distribute materials to millions of people just by making it available for download. A tape thread seems no different from people selling VCDs on ebay or something. It's not anything you want to publicize, but not what the law was created to stop. I'm concerned about information about BT or other download sites, though, especially if people are linking there from here.

The DMCA issue is separate from the copyright issue. You can break the DMCA without breaking copyright laws, and vice-versa.

Merely installing DVD playing software on a Linux computer requires breaking the DMCA. If someone here posted instructions on how to copy a copy-protected DVD (or even posted a link to a site that explained it) they'd be breaking the DMCA without necessarily breaking copyright law.

I suppose I should say that I am not a lawer, and this should not be construed as legal advice.

I know this is obvious, but I'll say it anyway. 20th Century's concern is that we're stepping on their toes w/r/t profiting off their property. Exchanging the tapes or DVDs is probably not going to raise alarms.

Even though I think the likelihood of action against a party with no pockets is low, it behooves us to be careful about people using this forum to profit off 20th Century's property. But it is also relevant that, without a DVD set yet, we don't make a dent in their margins.

Now, my suggestion (not legal), is just not to make Minearverse hospitable to trading of any kind. We're not ebay, and it's not content we need. We're not a goddamn bulletin board, either.

I'm concerned about information about BT or other download sites, though, especially if people are linking there from here.

Who volunteers to delete half the posts in tech?

Since I'm not a lawyer, I'm not giving legal advice here. However, I am a law student and spend tons of time researching. Here's what I found on the DMCA tonight (had to do something since there was no WF to watch.)

"The DMCA creates stiff penalties for the circumvention of copyright protection systems. The statute states, "[n]o person shall circumvent a technological measure that controls access to a work protected under this title." In essence, if a user accesses an encrypted or otherwise protected system without authorization in order to gain access to protected information, such as using DeCSS to gain access to a DVD movie, he or she will be in violation of the Federal Copyright Act. The second anti-circumvention measure in the DMCA addresses devices or services that circumvent a technological measure that effectively controlling access to a copyrighted work. With regard to film piracy and DeCSS, the use of the code itself would violate the first measure, and the distribution and posting of the code would be in violation of the second measure. Criminal penalties for infringement can be up to US$500,000 and/or a jail sentence of up to five years for the first offense."

Also, here's two examples of successful use of the "safe-harbor" provision (protecting ISPs):

"The court said that America Online was entitled to safe harbor for allowing unauthorized postings of copyrighted works to remain on its server for two weeks because its storage was "intermediate and transient." Particularly relevant to the court's decision was the finding that AOL had reasonably implemented a termination policy that "put[s] its users on notice that they face a realistic threat of having their Internet access terminated if they repeatedly violate intellectual property rights."

AND

The court determined that eBay had no actual or constructive knowledge that its web site was being used to sell pirated copies of the DVD. And the court went on to find that eBay did not have the "right and ability to control" the infringing activity simply because it could and did remove listings for the sale of pirated DVDs in the past."

Paging a Stompy -- post 9821 of this very thread is non-NAFDA-friendly. Take action as you see fit.

Thanks, Teppy. Edited.